Talk:Transnistria

Archives

• /archive 1
• /archive 2
• /archive 3
• /archive 4

What will happen if Moldova joins Romania?

File:Ro-mol-union.gif

Map thumbnail

Really? I highly dought romania would want a slavic populated area just outside it's historical area.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The proper page for that is Movement for unification of Romania and Moldova and there are several proposals, one of which does not include Transnistria. - Mauco 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff

Moldpres (Moldova's state owned news agency) has highlighted the friction between Smirnov and Sheriff, and this would not be the case if Sheriff was "owned by president Smirnov's eldest son" as we claim in the main namespace. See http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=ru&ID=46774.
I propose removing those six words. - Mauco 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections? Done. - Mauco 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GDP

The 2005 GDP per capita was wrong so I corrected that by dividing with population figure. The source we give has it in the context of a 5% increase but the actual number is only 1% higher than the 2004 amount ($756 vs $748). In 2004, GDP per capita was $720 in Moldova and $748 in PMR. Source: "Transdnistrian Market and Its Impact on Policy and Economy of the Republic of Moldova" by CISR (published in Chisinau, July 2005), available at Centrul de Investigatii Strategice si Reforme website www.cisr-md.org - Mauco 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Population

Pretty hard to see how the 1989 population changes from 546,400 to 679,000 without citation or comment. Can anyone explain what is going on here? - Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. User:MariusM (who made the change) should at least give a source. Meanwhile, an anon user bumped the figure up to 780,660 [1] in a related article, and left the original reference in place. The problem is that this reference was for the previous figure and does not support the new, higher number. - Mauco 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the refference: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm (Olvia Press - which represents the view of separatist government of Transnistria). Those are official data of the separatist government. Other sources talk about 739700 people in 1989, but this figure include some areas which are not controlled by the separatist government from Tiraspol, but by Republic of Moldova. I think we should compare only the area which is currently under the control of separatist government. --MariusM 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful to not compare apples with oranges. In our 1989-figures, we exclude Bender. Our text says: "Total population on the left bank of the Dniester river (minus Tighina)" whereas Olvia Press and the rest of the Transnistrian government always includes Bender, seeing it as part of Transnistria. The numbers in the Olvia article (679,000 for 1989 and 555,000 for 2004) clearly INCLUDEs Bender/Tighina as well. - Mauco 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a line with total population in 1989 including Tighina. Correct comparation is between 679000 people in 1989 vs. 555000 people in 2004 - those are data for the actual Tiraspol-controlled area (include Tighina and other few villages from Basarabia, exclude some villages from Dubăsari district which are not controlled by Tiraspol), and a good measure of the practical results of the separatist government.--MariusM 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

I moved the section about referendum from "Politicall status" to "Internal Politics" and added info about the latest arrests of political oponents of Tiraspol regime.--MariusM 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The move to "Internal Politics" is OK, but I had to remove your addition. It had bad grammer and was partly misspelt, but more importantly was not factually correct. Ghenadie Ţăran was released after questioning, then went to PSDM in Chisinau where he spent ten days, and he is now back home normally, with his whereabouts known. You may want to read the article "Disinformation and dirty tricks in referendum campaign" for some background info on how two news agencies even contradicted themselves in August to make the Transnistrian authorities look bad. - Mauco 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to find that the fate of Ghenadie Ţăran is known and his dissapearance was only because he left home for few days. I hope the pro-separatist source you quote is correct. However, even your source confirm that Ghenadie Ţăran and other activists of NGO "Dignitas" were arrested by transnistrian authorities and that, as I wrote in my addition, persons and organisations that are against separation from Moldova "are harassed by Transnistrian authorities and not allowed to campaign for their point of view in the referendum". The fact that those activists were arrested for only few days is not a reason not to mention this fact in Wikipedia. Is confirmed, even by "Tiraspol Times", that no charges were made against "Dignitas" activists regarding criminal activities. I consider their arrests as a relevant fact regarding the political climate in Transnistria during the preparation of referendum. I added back my comment, without the sentence regarding Ghenadie Ţăran.--MariusM 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The group was brought in for question 3 days after a bus explosion killed two people. Fact: They were released after questioning due to lack of evidence. Fact: They never produced a single bit of election material or campaign material, not even as much as a letter to the editor in a newspaper. Fact: They were not and are not active in any way in the current election campaign. Therefore, to tie one thing to the other, and make it an example of a "political arrest", would be wrong, and we must not include it. Furthermore, it is cited as one example (leading the reader to presume that there are others), but no such other examples have been cited either. I posted a citation request in main namespace last week but no further sources have been posted to prove the statement's accuracy. - Mauco 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The pro-moldovan side in Transnistria will not participate in the referendum and will not recognize its outcome. Fact: In order to report a higher participation at the referendum, the transnistrian authorities already started the falsification of results, diminishing the total number of voters [2]. Fact: is no reason for a pro-moldovan organisation in Transnistria to write letters to Transnistrian newspapers, as newspapers in Transnistria will not publish such letters. Fact: Ghenadie Ţăran, leader of the NGO "Dignitas" is called "pro-moldovan NGO activist" by "Tiraspol Times", in the article you quote. You don't see the conection between his opinions and his arrest, but I see. The fact that is no conection between NGO Dignitas and the bus explosion was confirmed even by transnistrian authorities.--MariusM 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate political positions for- or against. The more narrow purpose of this Talk page is for the editors of the article to specifically discuss new additions and changes to the article. In doing this, we must adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines (as opposed to our personal opinions of the subject, which both you and I and most of the other editors here certainly have). As you have pointed out, this is a controversial topic. At various times it has been under dispute. For this reason, this page urges all of us to please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. - Mauco 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you reverted an entire paragraph that I added, and you marked this as a "minor" edit - I don't consider this in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Bellow is the paragraph I want to add, let's disscuss it:

Pro-moldovan organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.Apelul reprezentanţilor societăţii civile privind “referendumul” neconstituţional din regiunea transnistreană a Republicii MoldovaMOLDOVAN NGOs REGARD TRANSNISTRIAN REFERENDUM AS A FARCE. The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year), fact considered by pro-moldovan NGOs as an artificial way to increase the percentage of people who participate in the referendum. Other opinion on this subject is that transnistrians are voting with their feets, leaving the heaven of Transnistria.--MariusM 05:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Moldovan organizations in Moldova proper have refused the referendum, as would be expected. If any such organizations within Transnistria have taken this stand, it would be of much more relevance to the article. However, the largest pro-Moldovan organization takes the opposite position. See http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol73-09-06.htm This is most likely related to the fact that most Moldovans are in favour of independence, something which has been recognized by the OSCE and by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. There is a summary of that here http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/179 - Mauco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the percentage shrinkage of the electoral roll, it would be an interesting bit of data for the Politics of Transnistria article but we should abstain from speculation or conjecture, especially polemics of the "leaving the heaven of Transnistria / voting with their feet" kind. Even if this argument is true, it has probably more to do with economics than politics; seeing how a similar situation has taken place in Moldova proper. (If I am not mistaken, Moldova holds the European record for the highest percentage of gastarbeiters abroad.) - Mauco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that the puppet organisation of Moldovans created by the separatist regime in Transnistria is "the largest pro-moldovan organisation". It did not reflect the will of the majority of Moldovans in that region (what "Tiraspol Times" is saying is not true) and is not pro-moldovan but pro-separatist. Between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include also basarabians. Instead of "pro-moldovan organisations" I will use "anti-separatist organisations", which is a better description, as not all anti-separatists are ethnic Moldovans. As long in the article "Transnistria" is included the problem of referendum it should be mentioned the appeal of boycot and the doubts about the corectness of the referendum. The shrinkage of the electoral roll in Transnistria can not be compared with that in Moldova. Census showed a 6% populaton decrease in Republic of Moldova and 18% decrease in Transnistria between 1989-2004 http://ro.altermedia.info/cealalta-romanie/recensamintul-din-transnistria_2927.html. Between 2005 and 2006 Transnistrian authorities anounced an other 7% shrinkage of electoral roll, this is not a normal situation even by East European standards, and rise concerns about the falsification of data in the referendum (the efforts to report a higher presence).--MariusM 06:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I add that there is no pro-moldovan organisation that appeal to voters: "participate in the referendum and vote for reunification with Moldova". In the reunification camp, all appeals are against participation and recognition of the referendum.--MariusM 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that we disagree on this. However, until there is a semblance of consensus, please do not impose your views on the article. As for Tiraspol Times, I read the article and they are not saying anything other than repeating claims already made by UN, OSCE, a pro-Moldova politician and former spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. As for statement of "puppet organisation", you may know that the same claim is being made against the specific groups that you cite. See http://www.regnum.ru/english/704387.html for instance. - Mauco 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course that the head of the Russian-Transdnestr Information-Analytical Center is supporting Transnistrian independence and future integration in Russia. Is no doubt about the expansionist policy of Russia in Transnistria, Russia gave even armed support in 1992 War of Transnistria. (However, in the article you quote doesn't exist the expression "puppet organisation"). The fact that appeals to boycot the referendum exists from the anti-separatist side is not my view, is a fact. You may consider that those who made such appeals are bad boys, their point of view is wrong, but you can not deny the fact that those appeals were made. I consider necesary to include this fact in the article.--MariusM 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, we can not attack the messenger just because we don't like the message. The head of the Analytical Center has an accusation far more serious than "puppet": He ties the anti-separatist organizations to Moldova's secret services, ex-KGB, and he names them with their names. It is hard to be clearer than that and the argument that civil society is a farce then becomes a case of the pot calling the kettle black. - Mauco 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, in the Transnistrian conflict, a Russian organisation is not an un-biases one. Remember that one of the question of the referendum is about the union with Russia (independence of Transnistria seems forgetten). No proves were shown by this Russian organisation that those antiseparatist organisations are indeed linked with ex-KGB. They have KGB archives in Moscow, why they don't show the documents? Libelling the political oponnents as ex-KGB is common in ex-Soviet space, but as long as proofs were not shown is only propaganda. If you want to add the comment of this Russian organisation in the article, I have nothing against, but please don't delete the fact that appeals were made to boycot the referendum, even if you don't like those appeals.

No one ever claimed that a pro-Russian organization would be unbiased. But in this conflict, neither are the Moldovan organizations which you insist on citing. The fact that they are directly tied to the Secret Service of Moldova has not been refuted by the directors, who are fully identified by name and affiliation. - Mauco 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I added info about the fact that from 46 countries represented in the council of Europe, only one (Russia) want the recognition of the referendum's results http://www.azi.md/news?ID=40985. Also, some info about OSCE position (you seem to ignore it) http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790 --MariusM 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that you, as a new editor here, don't seem to be heeding the statement at the very top of the header of this Talk page. In the past, we have had a lot of "revert wars" and to avoid that, now we try to debate changes first, before making them. Because of adherence to this policy the flamewars and edit wars of the past don't exist anymore. Your edits are very welcome, and as you know, I have welcomed them and supported them on some other pages, like the schools. But it would be a shame if they cause this page to become a battleground like in the past, where for long periods of time it was even locked down, so I ask again - for the third time - for consensus to be reached here first, please. - Mauco 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I always gave the source of my statements. What consensus to be made about indiscutable facts? 45 of the 46 countries represented in the Council of Europe wanted a resolution against recognition of Transnistrian referendum and Russia had an other opinion. This is a fact, why you deleted it?

I reverted it because you did not give any of the other editors of this page a chance to discuss your changes here before you included them, as we normally do on hotly disputed topics in order to avoid precisely what you complain about (namely, reversion). Apart from the that, your addition is not factually true but merely perpetuating Moldovan spin. If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained. So even though it wasn't a majority, it was not exactly 45 out of 46. In contrast, a less confrontational statement, which did pass (and which you do not mention) had the support of all. Why should our main namespace article concern itself with a Council of Europe statement which did not pass, while not mention the contents of the one which actually got passed and which was officially issued? It smells of POV-"spin" and that is not worthy of an encyclopedia. - Mauco 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am merely asking new editors to follow the guidelines which are clearly posted on the top of this page, and which have been extremely useful in the recent past to help lower edit wars and generally bring consensus to the article. To wit: This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. The purpose of doing so is to allow us to present a clear picture which is free of spin (pro-Moldova and pro-Transnistria alike). - Mauco 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Instead of answering the above, the content was almost immediately reposted. May I request, now for the fourth time, that we follow the norms of this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. I am sure that I, and hopefully other editors as well, will be able to reach consensus which is free of spin or blatant POV from any of the two sides, just as we have been able to do in the past as well. - Mauco 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I already put in the talk page all the arguments for the inclusion of the paragraph about the appeals to boycot the referendum, and about some foreign countries and organisation point of view regarding the referendum, but you are deaf on this topic. You also deleted some addition made by EvilAlex, without disscusing them in the talk page. You are not a neutral person on this topic, Mauco, you just want to delete the facts that you don't like.--MariusM 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The instructions on the top of this page are fairly easy to understand, but you have chosen to not heed them. That's all. If you can please follow the guidelines, then I am sure that we can collaborate and develop some great, balanced, neutral, and factually correct additions together. I will start a thread for this now, right below your attempt at personal attacks on my person. - Mauco 07:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is William Mauco?

Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) [3] Mauco, look what Edward Lucas wrote about you: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...And the point is? Actually, for the record, I have collaborated somewhat with Edward Lucas since then. I like him a lot, and we had intelligent discussions and full agreement on what we talked about. I have been able to provide him with some material which he asked for in relation to a follow-up article and he and I have been in contact since then, back and forth a bit on this and some other subjects. I also corrected him on some minor items (like the mistaken fact that I have never been at a sort of conference in Mexico City with anyone, for instance). In addition he knows that I am not affiliated with ICDISS, and at one point commented that he would do the same as me, in such a case. He valued the new information that I could provide for his work, and told me so, and I stand ready to work with him again in the future whenever he needs my help with anything. - Mauco 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that unlike a MariusM, William Mauco speaks under his name. `'mikka (t) 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention that personal character attacks against someone else is totally UNCOOL? - 84.73.243.158 14:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For some people, truth is UNCOOL, dear anonimous user.--MariusM 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the truth", but I have to agree with IP 84.73.243.158 that personal character attacks are uncalled for. I have not asked who you are, and don't care as long as you can bring good and constructive edits to the article. However, not that it matters, another use here already wrote me in private to tell me that he thinks you are permabanned Bonaparte. There is nothing wrong with debating an edit proposal on its merits, but there is everything wrong with attempting to change the debate into a personal attack when you can't convince others solely on the basis of the facts. In my case, as you can see above 22:09, 15 September 2006, your mud won't stick. - Mauco 15:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: I am not Bonaparte, I don't know him. You have a problem with the selection of information if you consider reliable information what "another user" wrote to you in private. In the same way you select informations for your articles? I don't know personally any user of Wikipedia.--MariusM 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not have a "problem with information" and I welcome feedback and collaboration from everyone on this site. I prefer to have it posted publicly, on my Talk page, but this particular user - who is a well known Wikipedia editor - probably thought that it was more polite to just email me in private, so he wouldn't step on anyone's toes by "outing" a newbie (in this case, you) in public without any evidence of his suspicions against you. I accept private emails as well, of course, and there is a link on my User page for emailing me. - Mauco 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section, referendum

Moved from main namespace, proposed by MariusM, and submitted here for discussion:

" :Anti-separatist organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.. "

If we include this, we should include the fact that these organisations are based in Moldova, and that they do not speak for any of the voters, be they the Moldovan residents of Transnistria and other residents of Transnistria in general. In other words, they are considered outsiders and not primary participacing organizations or organizations with a direct relevance to the referendum. Those organizations which are directly relevant are civil society groups based within Transnistria, and they have taken the exact opposite viewpoint. This must be mentioned in order to not present a one-sided view. It may also be of note to include what Transnistria's response was to the petition by Moldova's anti-separatist organizations. Why might this relevant? Because if we give the opinion of Moldova, but if the article is about Transnistria, then at the very least we deserve to also give a fair hearing to Transnistria's response.
It may also be interesting to mention the political organizations within Moldova who actually support or understand why Transnistria is holding a referendum, and have gone on the record in recent days to publicly say so, rather than only present the negative viewpoint.
Finally, while we mention organizations who claim to speak on behalf of Moldovans, we must not omit a mention of the largest such group within Transnistria and their viewpoint. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I already told, between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include people from the entire Republic of Moldova. About the "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie", in the talk page of that article I presented my view, that is a puppet organisation created by separatist regime, which is not representative for Moldavians in the region and which has no other activity that to show support of separatist regime (they didn't publish a single book of Moldavian literature, they didn't make anything else than telling that Republic of Moldova is the enemy of Transnistrian Moldovans)--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Like you correctly said, this is 'your view. Need I say more? A very solid case can be made (and has been made, since 1993 in numerous respected studies) for the argument that the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are actually opposed to unification with Moldova. One of our fellow Wikipedia editors, Jamason, even based his thesis on that (which he was kind enough to send me a copy of). - Mauco 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And your view is opposite. Why should be your view included in the article? Of course there are a lot of Russian-propaganda studies which told that ethnic Moldovans are against Moldova, but those studies are biases. You insist of including pro-Russian opinion and delete all antiseparatist opinions.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My view has no right to be included in the article either. I know that you haven't been an editor for very long, but please save all of us some time and read up on the guidelines for this encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I am not sure what studies you call "biased", but Wikis guidelines cover those situations quite clearly. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

" : The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year). "

This can certainly be included, provided we can source it. It ought to also be added to the Politics of Transnistria series, in that case. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I already gave the link that prove this fact http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 --MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We should include also the opinion of antiseparatist organisation, that the shrinkage of electorate is an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum. This argument was removed from the article by user Mikkalai. It may be a speculation, however is their point of view, and 7% decrease of population in only one year is something odd anyway.--MariusM 07:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no rule on Wikipedia that we have to include the point of view of a third party organization unless it is specifically relevant to the article. In this case, I am not sure that it is, seeing that the organizations don't represent the voters and are, at best, just outside commentators and, at worst, in the employ of Moldova's secret service, as Transnistria has apparently documented (by naming names and specifying the relationships of the spokesmen). The actual shrinkage of the electorate is relevant, possibly in this article and especially in the Politics of Transnistria article. - Mauco 08:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Antiseparatist organisations point of view is relevant when we are talking about this referendum. As I already explained, those organisation are not outside commentators and nobody proved that are in the service of Moldova's secret service. Some will say that the entire separatist regime of Tiraspol was created by Russian secret service. Why is, for example, Stefan Urîtu an outside commentator as he is a Tiraspol resident?--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Urîtu does not live in Tiraspol, and the rest is original research which has no place in Wikipedia. You can always start a blog or something, if you want to have an outlet for these opinions. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Urîtu has a flat in Tiraspol, he was resident of the city even before the 1992 War of Transnistria. He is known as a fierce critic of the Human right abuses not only of Smirnov's regime, but also of Republic of Moldova president Vladimir Voronin's regime. Here is an example how he protested against some arrests made in Chişinău http://www.curaj.net/?p=1043. Calling Urîtu an employee of Moldova's secret service is like calling the leader of Hezbolah an employee of Mossad or the president of Israel an employee of Iranian secret service (he was born in Iran). And remember there is not only Urîtu who signed that protest. What about "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex"?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

" : International organisations, as OSCE , the European Union and 45 of the 46 countries represented in the Council of Europe were against the recognition of the referendum's results, the only country which support this referendum is Russia . "

A statement of the countries that will not recognize the results of the referendum, along with OSCE stating the same position, certainly ought to be included in the article. As for the rest ("45 of the 46"), this is misleading and a Moldovan "spin" on a story which actually happened somewhat different, as an examination of Thursday's chain of events and the facts about both the original statement and the Finland-issued statement will show. It would be best to drop it altogether, because it is of marginal relevance. But if it has to be included, at least get the facts straight and don't present a misleading picture. If we can take the above points into account, I will be very happy to vote for inclusion of these new additions. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Council of Europe you need an unanimity to pass a resolution, this is why the resolution could not pass without Russia's aproval. I gave the link about 45 of 46 countries supporting the resolution, you didn't gave any link to prove that things happened somewhat different.--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just count. The data is on this page. I quote from above: "If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained." Even conflict.md, which you cite as a source, has this info so there is no need to "spin" the story as something which it isn't. I am not sure that is relevant, however, it is certainly relevant to mention the countries which won't recognize the outcome of the referendum (starting with Moldova, of course). - Mauco 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just give the exact link from where you took the quotation.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The quote is from this page (above) and the source for the data can be found in at least 10 different places on the web (which you can easily find with a couple of seconds of Googling). One of the sources even include a site which you yourself cite, namely http://www.conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1414 - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I qoute from the link you gave: "The document’s project was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Of the 46 member countries of the Council of Europe, only the Russian Federation rejected the declaration, without motivating its official position on the document". I think is exactly what I told. From 46 members only Russia was against the declaration. 46-1 = 45. Nowhere in the link you gave is any mention about countries which abstained. Can you tell which are the countries which abstained?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In favour: European Union (25) + GUAM (4) + Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey makes 33, not 45. This is called "putting a spin" on a non-story about a statement which did not pass and therefore, as per the rules of that body, does not exist as an official Council of Europe document. - Mauco 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, now for the fifth time here in two days, a reminder must be posted that substantial changes has to be discussed here first before making them. Ignoring the statement posted in the box at the very top of this page will merely lead to more reverts, and the waste of everyone's time which could be spent more productively on improving other parts of Wikipedia. - Mauco 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: By not heeding this reminder, we all just managed to get ourselves a full protection for the first time in, what, some eight or nine months... - Mauco 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize and to end the dispute

- Mauco, you told: "A statement of the countries that will not recognize the results of the referendum, along with OSCE stating the same position, certainly ought to be included in the article".16 September 7:28

Do you agree to put in the article the following phrase: "International organisation, as OSCE, European Union, GUAM, and some countries (Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, Turkey) anounced they will not recognize the referendum?"

Mild YES. The sentence can be made to sound better by phrasing it as "The OSCE and most European countries announced in advance that they would not recognize the results of the referendum." - Mauco 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

- Do you agree to mention "The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year)."?

YES, especially in Politics of Transnistria. The relevance here is probably also OK, if other editors don't object. Moreover, shorten it. And since we don't doubt the data of Transnistrian authorities, you can just say "The number of registrered voters shrank by 7% in a year" or, if you prefer to give a bit more information and put the whole thing in perspective, "Of the 555,500 inhabitants, a total of 390,000 were registered to vote, down 7% from a year earlier." - Mauco 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is exactly this: some people have doubts about the data issued by Transnistrian authorities, and consider the shrinkage an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You told "This can certainly be included, provided we can source it".16 September 7:28

Source is here http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 or here http://www.infotag.md/inews/61219/

- Do you agree to mention that "Anti-separatist organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.."

MAYBE, but try to make it less POV. If it is to be included, let us also include the argument of the other side. Not to discredit, but to give the official position stated by the titular subject of this particular article (Transnistria). Another option is to look at what the practice is for inclusion criteria on other country articles, in particularly the ones which I mention in my request for all of us to hold ourselves to the established standards. If you want me to, I can do a little look-around like I did in the past for TSDO1 and others, or you can visit the pages yourself and then report back to all of us here with your findings. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is the "official position stated by the titular subject of this particular article (Transnistria)"? I don't know any. I don't understand why Transnistrian authorities should have a position regarding this NGO's appeal. If you find an official position of Transnistrian authorities on this subject, please let me know (with source) and include it in the article.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You told that "maybe" you agree to include this fact, but to put also the position of Transnistrian authorities. I answer to you to find such a position (because I don't know if exist any) and include it in the article. Instead of showing the position of Transnistrian authorities and add it in the article, you just delete my paragraph. Is not fair. Why you hate so much the idea of including in the article the fact that some organisations asked to boycot the referendum?--MariusM 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick correction, if I didn't make myself clear already: I do not "hate" your inclusion. You got reverted because of changes to this page which initially had not been discussed here, and which we already pointed out some problems with (fortunately, problems which for the most part have now been resolved through the discussion on this page). The request for prior discussion is placed prominently on this page - not by me, I might add. As a frequent editor here, I know why this policy is in place, and I agree with it. Not following it will lead to the trouble that we find ourselves in now, when someone else decided to fully protect the page. This is unfortunate because the page has an excellent track record dating back to January of not having had the need to do that. - Mauco 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, to answer your comment: I will be glad to propose a rewrite of the disputed information that would be appropriate for the article. I will not include it in the article, as you suggest that I should, but I will place it here so you and others can comment on it and discuss it first. - Mauco 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe your goal is to avoid the inclusion of the information about boycot in the article in those days, when the referendum in Transnistria take place, and people will look for information about it. You will not come with any rewrite proposal as there is no official position of Transnistrian authorities regarding the appeal to boycot the referendum.--MariusM 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the case, as I have explained to you several times already. The person who is showing ill-will here is not me, but the person who repeatedly refused to follow the instructions on the top of this page and, as a result, forced it into lockdown. As for the rewrite of your sentence, I am in the process of doing my research right now, so I can provide the appropriate sources. And I have already discovered that you are wrong on that count, too: there is indeed quite an extensive number of sources citing the official position of the Transnistrian authorities vis-a-vis the statements from outsiders to not recognize and boycot the referendum. - Mauco 17:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is the point of even bothering to follow any of the rules? As soon as protection was lifted, as the logs from 17 September show, everyone else just rushed in to make their own preferred changes anyway ... including MariusM with the referendum, and our permabanned friend from the past with his Romanian language issue. Needless to say, not a single one of these changes was accompanied by any sort of prior discussion or even a single comment on this Talk page. So much for observing the guidelines (sigh). But if we all just do what we feel like, we'll be back in the mess of the past, and this page has suffered a lot from that sort of behaviour (as a look at the logs from all throughout 2005 will show). Mauco 06:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As I told, there are different opinions about those organisations, some are considering them "good guys" and some are considering "bad guys", we should not judge who is good and who is bad in this conflict, but to give the information that there exist an appeal to boycot the referendum.

Yes, this is certainly fair. Please review the two approaches which I suggest here, and then let us know which is best. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

- Do you agree to mention the opinion of antiseparatist organisation, that the shrinkage of electorate is an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum?

Is not a problem to consider those opinions correct or not, just to mention one of the reason some people don't believe the correctness of the referendum.--MariusM 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this would almost fall under the category of original research. Another longtime editor, Mikkalai, removed it and cited it is speculation. At any rate, a good way to settle this would not be to just depend on what editors like myself or Mikkalai think, but, as I suggest above, visit other disputed country pages and see what their policy on inclusion criteria is for these types of statements or opinions. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the opinion should be mentioned in order to explain (at least partially) why some people don't believe in the corectness of referendum. It may explain also the opinion of some international organisation, even if those organisation didn't mention in details the reasons why they don't recognize the referendum.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to quote an opinion of "some international organisation", but it absolutely iadmissible to quote it throug the third mouth of a press that hates Transnistria. You are welcome to find the original quotation. OSCE, GUAM, etc. are big guns, and they surely publish their statements themselves, without the help of Moldova Azi. `'mikka (t) 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Holding ourselves to established standards

In the past, when editors of this page have had discussions about criteria for inclusion or substantial changes, it has been helpful to look at how editors of Wikipedia pages for other countries approach the same set of issues. As the 4 archives for Transnistria (link at top) can show, this approach has helped us to succesfully resolve previously contentious issue such as the name and the flag, to name just two out of several. When we examine edit criteria for other country pages, two groups of countries will be particularly instructive: On one hand, the ones which are by nature highly contentious (USA, Iran, Venezuela, to name just a few) and, on the other, the List of unrecognized countries. Please spend a bit of time visiting those pages to see what they deem as relevant to include and not include. Wiki-wide accepted practice there, and established standards of these other pages, can serve as useful yardsticks for how we approach the same sort of choices on this particular page. I would like to see newcomers to Wikipedia, such as MariusM, learn from this approach instead of stooping to personal attacks against other editors. - Mauco 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Referendum article

May I humbly suggest that someone creates one? I wrote a similar one about South Ossetia. Óðinn 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I started a stub called 2006 referendum in Transnistria by just copying the existing referendum text from the main article. The idea of a stub is that others should add to it, please. Ideally, we can flesh out a really good article and then use the most salient points from that for including as a summary of the referendum issue in the main Transnistria article. That is how we have done it with other subjects (human rights, the 1992 war, history, etc.) - Mauco 07:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could our page protectors remove their POV from that section and at least mention referendum results, which are already known [4] ? Or OSCE & Co. does have the sole right to decide the fatum of Transnistrian people? And what about 200 foreign observers, who said the referendum was "democratic and conforming to international standards"? [5] Cmapm 11:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not protected from editing. Be bold and make the edits you think are fit abakharev 11:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've added some new official data. Cmapm 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I also took Alex Bakharev advice to be bold, and added the findings of The Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights - one of the organisations which send observers for the referendum.--MariusM 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear copyright at that website, but you copy-pasted almost the whole article (three but one paragraphs) from there. And you call this "being bold". Cmapm 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has to go immediately on the grounds of Copyvio alone. But there is a bigger issue, which is this: How bold do we really want to be, considering that the past history of this page? I, for one, would hate to have to spend my productive editing time doing edit wars, revert wars and going in and out of protections. This is easily avoided if we discuss any major changes first, as this page says (top) and as I keep suggesting because I honestly think that it would save everyone a lot of pain. - Mauco 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, if you don't want to lose time with edit wars, don't start them.--MariusM 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I am too frank, but: That is a bit rich coming from someone who "shoots first, asks questions later." My sole request, some six or seven times now (I lost count) is that we all please follow the instructions on top of this page and talk about non-minor edits first because this is a controversial topic. - Mauco 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, instead of working here, don't we focus on first adding a lot of information to the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub? If we do that, the stub can become a larger article. We can include more relevant information there and in more detail than would be appropriate for the main Transnistria article itself. Then as soon as we have a good and balanced article on the referendum, which is factually corrrect and sourced, we can take the key points and build a summary paragraph for inclusion in this page (the main Transnistria article). - Mauco 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, we should do so, if the previous summary was not biased. I see it to have contained only a "foreign" opinion on the referendum with no neither official results, nor any opinion of officially registered observers. As far as the short summary is balanced, we could work on the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub. Cmapm 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw that in the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub, the findings of HCHRM were also deleted, without any explanation. How can we reach a consensus in this way?--MariusM 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Check the logs. I did. It clearly states the reason: "Copyvio". I know that you are new here, so we try not to bite you, but it would help us all if you would please learn a bit more on the do's and don'ts of how Wikipedia works. Another editor, Khoikhoi (who I think might be my meatpuppet), already posted some very useful links for that. They are on your personal talk page. - Mauco 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Three large paragraphs, copied word in word from the copyright-protected source, are not acceptable in any article of Wikipedia, not just in this one. Cmapm 16:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm, he just added it back in but this time he didn't copy as much as before. It is still verbatim copy-paste, however, and has some questionable POV (such as the word "farce" to describe the referendum). It should be moved, for copyvio alone, and I still keep wishing that this particular editor would discuss his changes before making them which is the best policy for avoiding reverts on this page since he is not the sole editor here. - Mauco 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it has been removed temporarily now until the problem is fixed. I am sure that he will think that we are deleting his additions because we don't like them. That is not the case. The concerns center on 1) Copyvio, 2) Possible POV ("farce", etc), and 3) the fact that none of these changes are discussed first. This is disruptive and disregards the request on top of this page. If we can add factually correct information which is sourced as being true and which is relevant to the article, then it has to be added (of course, no copyright violations either, but that goes without saying). - Mauco 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then let's remove also "200 observers from 14 international organizations declared the referendum to be democratic and conforming to international standards", as it can be POV and addition was not discussed here. (Tiraspol Times is talking about 174 observers http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216, however their claim about "not a single report of fraud or any irregular occurences of any kind whatsoever" is not true, seeing the report of HCHRM). I agree that first time was copyvio, but the second time I put only a summary which is not a copyvio. But let's discuss. How you want to include in the article the position of HCHRM, which is a relevant one for this section of the article?--MariusM 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, if you ask for my opinion, I would prefer that we do all the work on 2006 referendum in Transnistria first and NO EDITING here, for the time being. Then as soon as a we have a solid article there, we identify the key points and shorten them for a brief summary paragraph or two which can go into Transnistria itself. This is how we do it with most of the other subjects and it is good for editors and readers alike. - Mauco 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, a good structure for the article (2006 referendum in Transnistria, with detail) would be some background to the referendum and the shrinkage in voters, then the results including turnout, a section of recognition or lack thereof, a section on statements of observers (pro and con), and ... anything else? - Mauco 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your other points are answered in detail at Talk:2006 referendum in Transnistria - Mauco 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We are in the process of building a good article on the 2006 referendum in Transnistria so anyone who has new information to add to the referendum section, please go there first and participate in the editing and its related talk. - Mauco 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I lookes at the actual sentence of the article: "Moldova and the West said they would not recognize the referendum" - is copied word-by-word from "Tiraspol Times" http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/130_international_observers_declare_independence_referendum_free_and_fair.html (capitle "A clean bill of health"). I know Mauco loves "Tiraspol Times", but should Wikipedia use the exact phrase of this newspaper? In previous (reverted) versions, we told the names of the countries and organisations that don't recognize the referendum--MariusM 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, I don't know what you are trying to imply here. I guess it is an attempt at a personal smear (like your posting of the "Who is William Mauco" on this page). I will not bait you. But I want to set the record straight on a couple of points: 1. The sentence is from CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/ap/world/mainD8K7BBU04.shtml I had not seen it at Tiraspol Times, but I am not surprised if they have it, too, because it has been used by dozens of news sources in recent days.[6] 2. You also say that I love Tiraspol Times. I don't know what this pissing match is about, but I have never claimed to love them. It covers Transnistria news in English, so obviously an editor of this page has to be aware of it, just as I also use lots of other sites for research. I fail to get the point, sorry. - Mauco 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As referendum is a current event, it makes sense to keep a more detailed explanation about it in the main article. After a month, we can restrain and keep details only in the article 2006 Referendum in Transnistria.--MariusM 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a vote on this, please? I personally think that I have posted some constructive suggestions but they have been ignored by two editors with a declared anti-Transnistrian bias. The way this is going is becoming disruptive to everyone's work, and there is also the little issue of the 3 revert rule. - Mauco 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times

Edward Lucas wrote recently (15 September) an article about "Tiraspol Times". Mauco, as you told that you know personnaly Lucas and discuss with him (and even agreed with him), just look how Lucas claim they make their propaganda: "Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. The article, which the site says was "adapted" by a journalist named Michael Garner, appears to support Transdniester's claim to independence. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says." [7] Maybe we should not consider "Tiraspol Times" as a reliable sources.--MariusM 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not. Although - by the way - Edward didn't write the above. It was published by an organization which he does not work for or write for, and which is funded by the US federal government for the specific purpose of public diplomacy, in other words, to advance the interest of the American government through the use of propaganda. So even though I don't want to defend Tiraspol Times, I do want to keep an open mind because possibly this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". It is interesting to read this page http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/getthefacts.html and then go to the http://www.rferl.org website where no similar pledge or promise can be found. - Mauco 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody is lying. Maybe is the American-founded evil organisation, maybe is "Tiraspol Times". Mauco believes is the americans, which are writing only propaganda. Of course, Tiraspol Times can not be wrong. Probabily we have just to put a link to "Tiraspol Times" in Wikipedia and stop the querell.

Difference between me and Mauco is that I was never against to include in Transnistria-related articles the point of view of "Tiraspol Times" and other such sources, Mauco always object the inclusion of everything is against Transnistrian government.--MariusM 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it with all these insinuations and personal attacks? "Somebody is lying" ... Please, play fair. You say Edward Lucas wrote it, I say he didn't. That is easy to solve without the need to be nasty about it. The byline says Luke Allnutt. Edward, in contrast, works for The Economist. He has no affiliation with RFERL or any other media which is funded by the United States government for PR purposes. - Mauco 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem ... speaking of lying: I did some more research now, in order to determine if this is indeed a reliable source or not. There is only one instance of a "Tom de Waal" in the archives (here: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/Tom+de+Waal) and it looks like he is being quoted in a fair and accurate way[8]. It certainly doesn't give him reason to claim to be outraged, I think. My analysis: He is just quoted twice in generic terms on unrecognized conflicts and not on anything related to Transnistria directly. The first quote is halfway into the article: "war is unacceptable: it would destroy thousands of lives and all the fragile progress that has been made and Russia would inevitably be dragged in." The second quote is at the end: "the Kosovo process is useful because it challenges those assumptions. Surely, now that the precedent has been set, the debate has to be about democracy and minority rights more than about territorial integrity." Then, to verify if the quotes were correct, I searched for them and came up with other instances where the same two quotes appear under his name, both here[9](OpenDemocracy) and here[10](UNPO.org). It all looks good. It does not give me reason for concern on grounds of accuracy. - Mauco 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THANKS, GREAT WORK - 85.25.4.93 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is basic research really, and I think that someone was maybe mislead into drawing the wrong conclusions because when you start going back, verifying the sources, finding the facts and so on, then it actually all checks out, despite what MariusM posted (which implies that Tiraspol Times is an unreliable source). I am not blaming MariusM because I realize of course that few people are willing to do this kind of work and most readers just read RFERL without knowing its Cold War history, or where the money comes from, or what the purpose is of this operation. - Mauco 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is possible that, after the scandal with Tom de Waal appeared, "Tiraspol Times" took out from its on-line archive the articles with discovered problems. Is this newspaper only on-line, or it is also print on paper?--MariusM 11:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is the same article. If you study the full text of the rest of the RFERL article and compare the phrasings, there are two or three other key identifiers and unique turns of phrasing which show that they are talking about the same article. It is just that no one else bothered to actually fact-check in depth and go back to the original sources, like I did. - Mauco 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE KNOWS "RFERL" HAS A DIRTY HISTORY BASED ON CIA MONEY. THEIR WORK WAS PART OF SECRET CIA PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE CAMPAIGN IN EASTERN EUROPE. FROM: "RFERL" - 85.25.4.93 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The paragraph on the 2006 referendum, under internal politics, currently has NPOV-problems due to bad faith edits - not discussed in advance - which are in violation of WP:NPOV. I have no interest in getting into an edit war but just want to point out that:

• All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.
• In comparison with Transnistrian referendum, 2006 the current bias is blatant.

Solution is NOT to just add more, in hopes of balancing opposing views, since for the main Transnistria article we just need a main summary and then the details in the specific referendum article. Of course, it goes without saying that this summary should be neutral or, at the very minimum, be an accurate synopsis of the main points of the detailed article. This is currently not the case, due to selective editing by these two users. - Mauco 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)